Legal Research
Cases
R v Kokiri

R v Kokiri

Case [2019] NZHC 501 20 March 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2018-055-0930

[2019] NZHC 501

THE QUEEN

v

SYDNEY JAYDEN KOKIRI

Hearing: 20 March 2019

Appearances:

E J McCaughan for Crown I Jayanandan for Defendant

Judgment:

20 March 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF JAGOSE J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Kayes Fletcher Walker Limited, Auckland I Jayanandan, Barrister, Manukau

R v KOKIRI [2019] NZHC 501 [20 March 2019]

[1] Mr Kokiri, you are here to be sentenced on one charge of manslaughter.1 You pleaded guilty after I indicated your likely sentence on 11 December 2018.2 I entered your conviction and I gave you a first strike warning at that time.

[2] I indicated you were likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment for a period of up to three years and nine months, with the possibility of meaningful adjustments for your personal factors and your guilty plea. For the benefit of those in the room now, I will explain my calculation again, but I see no reason to move from it. The new issues for today are the extent of any discount.

The offending

[3] Your offending leading to the manslaughter charge occurred on the morning of 2 May 2018. You were then 17 years old. The agreed summary of facts records you went into a Countdown store with your mother, your girlfriend, and another woman, who went on to do their shopping. The store’s alarm rang when you left the store separately, with a stolen packet of razors and a charity donation box.

[4] A store guard, Goran Milosavljevic, and another staff member confronted you. When Goran stood in front of you to prevent you walking off, you tried to push him out of the way, but Goran stood his ground. You swung a punch at Goran, but it did not connect.

[5] Goran reacted by hitting you in the face, before the other staff member separated the two of you and you started to move away. Goran re-engaged with you. He grabbed you around your neck, and held you against Countdown’s front window, telling you to leave. The staff member intervened to separate you again. A crowd, including your mother, now had gathered around the three of you.

[6] As you walked away, Goran and the crowd followed you. You turned back to Goran and punched him in the side of his head with your closed fist. Goran fell to the ground, where he hit his head on the concrete pavement. Your mother encouraged you

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 171, 160(2)(a) and 177. Maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
2 R v Kokiri [2018] NZHC 3247.

to leave the scene, and you ran down the road. You bumped into someone you knew and changed shirts with them, telling someone else you met you had just knocked out a security guard.

[7] Meanwhile, Goran was transported to hospital, where he was treated for skull and occipital fractures. He was pronounced dead the next morning. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Kokiri

Details

AGLC: R v Kokiri [2019] NZHC 501
Case: [2019] NZHC 501
Decision Date: 20 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kokiri involved the sentencing of Sydney Jayden Kokiri for one charge of manslaughter. The court heard the case on 20 March 2019, with E J McCaughan representing the Crown and Jayanandan representing the defendant. The court was tasked with deciding the appropriate sentence for Kokiri, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter following a violent altercation in a supermarket that resulted in the death of Goran Milosavljevic.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the nature of Kokiri's offending, making adjustments for his personal circumstances, and applying a discount for his early guilty plea. The court considered various factors, including the aggravating circumstances of the assault on a security guard during the commission of other illegal activity, and the mitigating factors such as Kokiri's youth, his low IQ, expressions of remorse, and systemic disadvantage in his background. The court also evaluated the impact of Kokiri's offending on the victim's family, particularly his sons, who had suffered significant trauma and loss.

The court reasoned that while the starting point for sentencing should reflect the seriousness of the offence, adjustments were necessary to account for Kokiri's personal circumstances and mitigating factors. The court concluded that a discount of 25% was appropriate for Kokiri's personal factors, including his youth and prospects for rehabilitation, and an additional 25% discount was warranted for his early guilty plea. After considering these adjustments, the court determined that a sentence of two years' imprisonment, with the possibility of home detention if a suitable residence could be found, was the most appropriate outcome. The court granted Kokiri leave to apply for a sentence substitution should he secure a suitable residence for home detention.

In summary, the court sentenced Kokiri to two years' imprisonment, with the possibility of home detention if a suitable residence could be found, reflecting the need to hold Kokiri accountable for his actions while also considering his personal circumstances and mitigating factors.

Orders